Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism - And Now Even The UN Admits It

No, in this scenario, drawing the ace of spades means you got cancer, and we can continue to refine this analogy. For example, we know what cancer is, we can tell if you drew the ace of spades.

 

So the premise of your assertion is that you don't know WHY, or HOW, you simply FIAT the assertion and say that it does. It should be abundantly obvious that you aren't really serious about this conversation. Is your worry that someone challenged you? Is that it?

Unfortunately, that isn't the way the world actually works. I don't accept that you have the authority to simply declare the act, failing to demonstrate the actual act and rely on, "because I told you so" is more a reflection of your own shallowness. Why dodge the hard questions? That is, afterall, what science is actually all about. And authority is earned because you can repeat and demonstrate results. Not just "because I told you so" BS.

What you should be able to demonstrate is that X number of smoked cigarettes induces this cellular mutation. As in, X=Y. And that Y (mutation) is a demonstrable form of cancerous cellular structure and behavior. But, that isn't what you're selling. You're selling that "some folks get cancer who smoke"... X does not equal Y it's only an indication of Y. That's laughable.

 

Now, I think it's safe to assume you would avoid the red shirt in this scenario as well. So let's further refine the model:

You have a deck of cards that has been shuffled. and every day, ten times a day, you randomly put 8 cards into a different position than they were in the original deck. If somewhere in that deck, you have a straight flush, that means you have cancer. Some percentage of people will have a straight flush in the initial deal, and some will have cards so spread out that it is unlikely they will ever have a straight flush in the deck. But, wearing the red shirt means you have to do it 13 or 15 times per day.

Now, how do you feel about that red shirt?

This is just discussing your understanding of statistics and risk.

 

We are working on this in the deck of cards scenario. You also haven't told me if you believe in any science?

 

Why? You still haven't done anything credibly, other than to demand we believe, that drawing a card (but just the ACE of Spades) and not any other card, gives you cancer. I'm still laughing about that part. Ok, other than "because I said so", do tell, what is so different about, or dangerous about the ace of spades? I mean, beyond your willingness to simply tell us we must?

 

Asked and answered. Again, reading comprehension problems? So, tell us again, what about that one card and the act of touching it by drawing it is so dangerous? Or does the danger just exist in your mind??

 

Ok, you are maybe correct. I don't see where you answered that question. Could you maybe rephrase or explain again?

 

Well, we are talking about a thought experiment or analogy to clarify our thinking. So, yes in this model, we are simply stating as axiomatic that the ace of spades means that you have cancer. We are saying, that IF these axioms were true, would you avoid that red shirt or not. That way we can focus on understanding and thoughts about risk without having to deal with all of the other external variables.

 

Ok, so part of your thought experiment must then also include a reason. Why obfuscate from that? Simply saying, because I said so, isn't sufficient here. It lends a sense of credibility that your analogy cannot ever produce, so why indulge you here?

 

Do you legitimately not understand? Or are you just pretending not to in order to avoid the logical box that you already know exists? If you legitimately don't, I'm happy to work through it with you if you are willing to explore it in good faith. If not, let's just call it a day and try to leave each other alone.

 

The only reason you're invoking fiat here is to avoid the causality question. That's it. You said it does. You can't defend why it does other than to demand that we listen to you that your outcome must happen. Asking the hard question then doesn't happen, and you ignore that in the real world, this conversation is laughable. There is no logic box here. You haven't structured anything logically to begin with. The only place said box exists is in you imagination.

 

So, I'm going to have to conclude that you don't understand, but aren't willing to try to understand, and in fact will actively fight against understanding.

 

Delude yourself if you must. I simply am unwilling to accept that you have any mastery over your ability to dictate. More, that once you induce your own authority that you can then reuse it in other conversations because it was accepted here. Laughable. Truly laughable.

 

You don't understand or don't want to understand thought experiments or models.

Edit: I suppose one doesn't get to be anti-science by understanding science.

 

If you think we have a president that came from Mars, should a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate it? That is ignoring the entire criteria required for appointing a special prosecutor, or even assigning a beat cop to look into it. That you believe Trump is a puppet of a hostile state is a perfect example of hyperbolic paranoia and hatred.

 

Well, a hostile state attacked our country to get him elected, and he fired the lead investigator for investigating it. Seems like a thing worth looking in to.

 

Nobody is saying that there isn't other factors in play regarding whether someone lives or die. Just like nobody is saying that there isn't other factors involved in modulating the climate.

In fact, scientists flat out say that it isn't just CO2 that modulates the climate, but there are lot of other things as well. And if you want to know how the climate will respond to changes in many variables then you need to consider the net effect of all of those variables. We just happen to live in an era today where CO2 is a significant component among all components that are in play.

And speaking of correlation and proof...can you offer a narrative of climate change that adequately describes both past and present climate change without invoking CO2? Scientists certainly can't. That should tell you something.

 

EVERYTHING is a "back door to socialism" because socialism is inevitable due to the collapse of aging capitalism.

 

Socialism is the sirens song so yeah it's always being sung and there's always a new gullible generation that listens to it.

 

I have yet to see (to date) an explanation at all that even attempts to describe the climactic variation we see today. Why 130K years ago, did we enter into the last full on ice age? Did the atmosphere suddenly lose all of it's CO2? If, as you suggest, that CO2 must be a part of the discussion, explain a circumstance that lead to the diminishment of the available atmospheric CO2. Also, when it became time for remissions, about 25K years ago, what caused the change? Did, suddenly, the saturation of CO2 in a non industrial age suddenly create the necessary warming to pull the world out from under the ice? And if so, where did this come from?

So, for sure, human science has the ability to describe the atmospheric saturation of CO2, but other than that ability, we don't have anything but proxy records that our research has shown to be unreliable, or ice core studies that demonstrate the same. At the end of the day, we still lack a functioning model for why the earth entered the last ice age, or why the earth rebounded from it.

 

Then you've buried your head in the sand. There absolutely exists a model that explains glacial and interglacial cycles. The model is the same one that is in use today. It is the net effect of all actors on the climate system that dictate how it changes. The model certainly isn't perfect and it doesn't answer all questions and never will, but it does answer most of the big picture items.

Milankovitch cycles provided the bulk of the negative radiative forcing with volcanic, biological, etc. activity likely getting the geosphere over the hump and into a regime of broad change. The atmosphere doesn't suddenly lose CO2 which explains why glacial advances are long and drawn out processes. But adding CO2 to the atmosphere can be sudden which explains why interglacial periods arrive quickly. And remember, CO2 is both in a feedback with the temperature and can catalyze temperature changes. So as CO2 gradually wanes it puts further pressure on the climate to cool which leads to more scrubbing of CO2 from the atmosphere. Likewise, as CO2 rapidly increases in the atmosphere it puts further pressure on the climate to warm which leads to more releases of CO2. And, of course, CO2 goes into the atmosphere quickly, but comes out slowly which explains why glacial/interglacial cycles create the sawtooth-like appearance with gradual declines and rapid increases in temperature. Scientists tell us that glacial periods suppress volcanic activity which sets the stage for a quiescent period of aerosols that work in tandem with the warming pressure of Milankovitch cycles to bring the Earth out of a glacial period. On the flip side interglacial periods allow for more volcanic activity which sets the stage for a hyperactive period of aerosols that work in tandem with the cooling pressure of Milankovitch cycles to send the Earth back into a glacial era. Other elements like biological activity, albedo, ocean currents, etc. create a lot of variability in this process and since Milankovitch cycles aren't regular like is erroneously believed the exact timing of the glacial/interglacials has an irregular component to it even though the period is approximately every 100,000 years. Do we have all the answers? Nope. Will we ever have all the answers? Not a chance. But that doesn't mean scientists are clueless and can't draw conclusions with confidence.

It's like this. If someone is hell bent on killing another person they are going to have a considerably harder time doing so with a pool noodle. But if you arm that person with a gun that shoots live rounds then he'll be far more likely to succeed even though his success rate will be less than 100% because there are other factors involved.

It's the same with the climate. If you "arm" scientists with a limited set of actors say solar radiation and volcanic activity alone they cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycles. But, if you "arm" them with the knowledge of CO2 then the narrative suddenly begins to align with observations quite well. And it's the same phenomenon today. CO2 isn't the only actor in play, but it is an essential one. Ignoring it causes the consensus theory of climate change to deviate significantly from reality for both the past and the present.

 

Again, zero demonstrable working model that explains the climate variability. Yet. I hold out hope that CERN et al will provide some answers that we can actually test and replicate. I won't be holding my breath.

I guarantee to you that you can die from a pool noodle. You might not like the answer, but it is possible. Just because it's harder is only a subjective opinion you have. And just like having a gun, perhaps the only real difference is that it might take more training to accomplish death by shooting a gun than the pool noodle.... But again, that's equivocation. The original basis of the conversation was how bullets are the cause of death, which they cannot independently be. Even if you just have them lying around the house, only if a fire or other intense heat effect them do they spontaneously fire off. Do you suppose its the same with volcanos? Volcanic winter when sufficient effluence shrouds the globe and stifles the sun? perhaps. But just as likely, it's also a variant of the suspension of the effluence that also causes variance. If the ash settles and it has color other than white, it absorbs more radiative energy and converts faster and melts things like ice even at freezing temps.... CO2 alone couldn't ever modify the blanket sufficient at low temps. The historic record shows us this, even though the ice cores themselves are poor indicators and have a ton of noise in their data.

So yes, CO2 isn't the only player here. But, according to you, it is the ONLY player that is in play. So, which is it? Now, or ten posts ago when you said it was the only player? Hard to keep up here. Better question, why is the molten core sloshing around? CO2?

 

China is the worst polluter on the planet. Just when I thought the UN couldn't get more ridiculous. We need to be rid of this trash.

 

Yes there is. You're just burying your hand in the sand and ignoring it.

Well, if you're referring to CERN's CLOUD experiment they put the nail in that coffin in 2016.

I have never claimed that CO2 is the only player modulating the climate. In fact, I go out of my way in many of my posts to explain this. I'm constantly posting about solar radiation, albedo, clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, etc. If there is a post in which I said CO2 is the only player then bring it to my attention because that would definitely be a mistake I want corrected.

 

I think where we part company is you think C02 is the dominant player overriding the other factors you give brief mention while us "deniers" think exactly the opposite and even think we may not even know all the players in the game.